Hillary Clinton’s press secretary promises tax hikes will be in her presidential campaign’s policy proposals, to be released this summer and fall. Rather than use the toxic phrase “tax hikes,” press secretary Brian Fallon disguised the coming proposals as “revenue enhancements.”

Clinton said she will strongly defend the law. But over the course of her campaign, she’ll propose some fixes.

“About how to fix the family glitch, for example,” she said, which has excluded a number of low-income people with families from getting subsidies. “About how to deal with the high cost of deductibles that put such a burden on so many working families, and how to deal with the exploding cost of drugs, particularly the so-called specialty drugs.”

. . .

However, both the family glitch and the high deductibles were deliberate choices by Democrats in the ACA. Both were trade-offs to keep premiums low, and therefore minimize the cost of the subsidies. The former only came to light in 2013, just before the disastrous rollout of the Healthcare.gov exchange. Essentially, it boils down to the employer mandate to keep insurance plans affordable for employees, capping their contributions to 9.5 percent of income – but Congress deliberately didn’t extend that to family coverage. Workers who have access to such insurance through employers can’t qualify to buy subsidized insurance for their families in ACA exchanges.

That was a deliberate cost-cutting measure by Democrats, Chris Jacobs of America Next reminded Wall Street Journal readers. “To keep the total cost of insurance subsidies … under $1 trillion, lawmakers made numerous tough choices,” Jacobs recalls. They delayed the start of subsidized insurance for a year, and put curbs on levels of subsidies in the later years of the ACA’s first decade. “And Congress passed—whether lawmakers knew it or not—the “family glitch” provision.”

The need for higher deductibles was an even more explicit choice. Obamacare mandates higher risks for insurance pools, both in terms of eliminating barriers for pre-existing conditions and for preventive-care coverage. Insurers had to either hike premiums significantly to deal with the increased access or raise deductibles to force the costs back onto the consumer. The same tough choice that Jacobs notes in terms of holding subsidy costs below $1 trillion forced the Obama administration to pressure insurers into keeping premiums low, which meant either higher deductibles or bankruptcy. Anyone with even a passing understanding of risk pools could have easily predicted these outcomes. …

Hillary Clinton withheld Benghazi-related emails from the State Department that detailed her knowledge of the scramble for oil contracts in Libya and the shortcomings of the NATO-led military intervention for which she advocated.

Clinton removed specific portions of other emails she sent to State, suggesting the messages were screened closely enough to determine which paragraphs were unfit to be seen by the public. …

Clinton selectively edited other portions of emails she declined to provide to the State Department.

For example, in July 2012, Clinton removed paragraphs from a Blumenthal memo that warned “simply completing the election…and fulfilling a list of proper democratic milestones may not create a true democracy.” Blumenthal also wrote — in sections that Clinton deleted before providing the document to State — that the government would likely be “founded on Sharia,” or Islamic laws.

The group advocating to implement Sharia, Ansar al-Sharia, is a designated terrorist group that played a role in the Benghazi attacks.

But Clinton hid how much she knew about that development.

. . .

Any other government official would be looking at jail time for that kind of action. Sandy Berger got caught doing essentially the same thing with official government documents not under subpoena (presumably for the same purpose, to clean up after the Clintons), and traded his law license in exchange for not getting prosecuted. The chances of Hillary Clinton getting investigated for this by the Department of Justice are roughly nil while Barack Obama is President, but it’s certainly a good argument for keeping that authority away from Hillary by ensuring she doesn’t succeed Obama to the White House.

That’s not to say that the Obama administration is entirely enamored of her flouting of the law. Ron Fournier told MSNBC’s Morning Joe that they’re getting pretty “disgusted” by it:

Really? As Joe Scarborough says, if they are “disgusted” by it, then they have an entire Department of Justice to investigate it. The lack of any action speaks louder than any anonymous leaks to the media of their supposed disgust.